Next, I present three terms which are closely related to intercultural competence.
Especially the first one, culture, as a word is likely to be familiar to most. Still, it is worth discussing in this context, and keeping in mind what aspects the term entails. Intercultural encounter and competence are discussed later on in this section. They are also terms which might sound simple enough, but I want to give a brief outlook into them since they are regularly discussed in relation to intercultural competence. Furthermore, since intercultural competence is such a complex term, it might be of use to comprehend these related terms as Barrett, Byram, Lazár, Mompoint-Gaillard and Philippou (2013) also suggest.
It should be noted that most existing frameworks of intercultural competence do not offer any definition of culture with exceptions such as Barrett et al. (2013) (Borghetti, 2017, p.
4). Although I maintain that intercultural competence should not be restricted to culture or cultural diversity, and other factors such as age or economic background should be taken into account in intercultural encounters, I do still believe that the concept of culture should be discussed in some detail. Culture is a fundamental part of intercultural competence, and many of its definitions rely on the descriptions of culture. Consequently it is worth reminding the reader of the complicated nature and description of the term.
Fortman and Giles (2006) declare that culture, similarly to intercultural competence, is omnipresent, multidimensional and complex. It is the foundation that tells us how to respond to people, objects, and events in our environment without conscious thought. Despite its pervasiveness, it is difficult to establish a definition for culture. Its existing definitions are as a widespread and varied as are cultures themselves. The fact that individuals and especially scholars tend to portray culture through their own particular lens may explain the extensive range of definitions. As a consequence, definitions vary by the approach of the individual.
(Fortman & Giles, 2009, p. 91-92)
Barrett et al. (2013) also remind that culture is a notorious term due to difficulties of defining it. Unlike Fortman and Giles (2009) they do not blame the various scholarly
interpretations for this fact. They bring up interestingly that difficulties in defining it are due to cultural groups being always internally incoherent and absorbing a variety of diverse norms and practices, which often change over time and are contested and executed by individuals in personalized ways. (Barrett et al. 2013, p. 5)
According to Fortman and Giles (2009) culture represents a system with which a group of individuals organizes and interprets the world and their place in it. Scholarly opinion varies, but most of the current research recognizes that norms, beliefs, perceptions, and values are some of the underlying factors people consider when they describe culture. (Fortman and Giles, 2009, p. 92) Birukou, Blanzieri, Paolo, and Giunchiglia (2009) likewise explain that most definitions acknowledge that culture consists of elements that are shared and/or learned by a group of people while the content of culture differs in descriptions. Birukou et al. (2009) see the content of culture as a set of traits such as behaviour, knowledge of facts, ideas, beliefs, norms, and so on. (Birukou et al., 2009, p. 3)
Nevertheless, Barrett et al. (2013) confirm, much like Birukou at al. (2009), that distinctions between the material, social and subjective features of culture can be drawn.
According to Barrett et al. material culture entail the physical productions (e.g. tools, goods, clothing, and foods). Social culture refers to the social establishments of the group (e.g.
language, religion, laws, rules of conduct, and folklore). Subjective culture comprises of the beliefs, norms, collective memories, values, and practices which members often use as a frame of reference for relating to the world and making sense of it. (Barrett et al. 2013, p. 5) This kind of description of culture is perhaps the most common or at least quite traditional.
One often hears people defining culture with this sort of tripartite description of material, social and subjective aspects of culture. Nevertheless, with this sort of definition it is important not to take certain laws, rules, attitudes or values as all-embracing truths and to remember that culture is also specific to the individual.
Rathje (2009) takes a strong critical stand when talking about culture. She asserts that the concept is loaded with implications of belonging, deprivation, inclusion, and overdoing.
When the term is unreasonably politicized it magnifies each simple folkloric aspect. This small term, according to Rathje (2009) carries excessive burdens of social order and all kinds of illusions so that its use in reasonable discussion is hardly adequate anymore. (Rathje, 2009, p. 39) It is true that culture is often used in a stereotypical matter and its use might reinforce prejudices. The term needs to be used cautiously and it has to be realized that it is not an explanation for all kinds of behavior and difference. For instance students must be perceptive of culture (as well as other backgrounds and factors) that may affect their encounters with different people whether it is in the world of work or while traveling for example. It does benefit them to recognize and be aware of how difference is created. However, perhaps most importantly, I personally would urge students and everyone else to keep in mind that culture,
with all its dimensions, do not explain all kinds of behavior or difference and that it may reinforce stereotypes and prejudices.
I still would not go as far as saying that its use in reasonable discussion is no longer adequate as Rathje (2009) suggests. The term is complex enough already and the need for high-flown definitions is not as pressing in my opinion as Rathje (2009) asserts. Scholars can use declamatory descriptions but “ordinary” people must be able to understand the term and its trouble spots as well.
In addition to culture, Barrett et al. (2013) describe also two other terms, intercultural encounter and competence, which are important in understanding intercultural competence. In an intercultural encounter, persons or groups of people who are perceived to have different cultural affiliations encounter each other. Such encounters may take place virtually through social media for example or face-to-face or. They may involve people from different countries, different regional, linguistic, ethnic or religious backgrounds or people from different
lifestyles, genders, social classes, sexual orientations, ages or generations and so on. Barrett et al. (2013) write: “An interpersonal encounter becomes an intercultural encounter when
cultural differences are perceived and made salient either by the situation or by the individual’s own orientation and attitudes.” (Barrett et al. 2013, p. 7) It is interesting that Barrett et al. (2013) insist on using the term ‘intercultural’ while describing that such an encounter may involve people from also other backgrounds than cultural. Again, I might suggest the use of the word ‘social’, and in this case ‘social encounter’, since other factors, in addition to culture, are also taken into consideration.
Competence, Barrett et al. (2013) demonstrate, is used in diverse ways; it is used for example in everyday use casually as a synonym for ‘ability’, and it has a more technical purpose within vocational education and training. For present purposes, Barrett et al. (2013)
point out, competence is understood not only as a matter of contextually applicable skills, but also as a combination of attitudes, knowledge, understanding, and skills, which are put into use through action in any relevant situation. According to Barrett et al. (2013) competence is the ability to successfully respond to situations which present tasks, challenges or difficulties for the individual. Intercultural encounter is one such situation. Competence is always exposed to enhancement or further learning, since situations may vary in different ways.
Therefore, intercultural competence is a mixture of attitudes, knowledge, understanding, and, skills put into use through action. (Barrett et al., 2013, p. 7) These four dimensions come to play in the following chapter with the definitions and models of intercultural competence.
Culture, although a contested term, is an important part of intercultural competence. It has not been discussed in many instances in relation to intercultural competence (Borghetti, 2017), although it perhaps should be. Perhaps its pervasive nature is to blame for this; why explain something that is all around us? I would say that paying attention to culture and its essence, even for a brief moment, is still important, especially in relation to a term that so heavily relies on it. Furthermore, since this study discusses intercultural competence in relation to education and assessment, it is worth to remember the nature of culture. Everyone can benefit from being aware of how culture affects our encounters, and how differences are perhaps created through culture. At the same time we need to remember the other side of it, which may cause stereotypes or prejudicial behavior.